I got in this morning to find 4 comments from this blog waiting for me.
A gentleman (I believe) by the name of Ben left this comment:
"Curious!
That would make more sense if the iPods were charged and loaded with music (at least a couple of songs... maybe the top 10 singles of the week?), you know, to satisfy that "instant fix". What else can you do with a brand new vending machined iPod? They'll need those "Do not eat iPod" warnings back.
ps: no, I haven't seen one."
I hadn't thought of that, Ben. I bet those things would disappear from those vending machines quick, especially if you're at the airport and forgot your charger! That really sucks. LOL! I like the "do not eat iPod" warning. Guess we'll have to see...
A person by the name of Yajun said: "I would rather suggest Google remove everything in its index about those newspapers. That will perfectly comply any copyright issues."
Agreed, though I think there is a different solution than removing everything or having Google show it without proper compensation. Google is pushing the envelope of "fair use" and people are taking notice. There's a middle ground somewhere, it just needs to be found.
Then there is a comment from a gentlement named Nathan:
"You say that opt-out is unethical. But all your examples are of advertising being *pushed at consumers*. Google does not push anything at website owners. Opt-out is only unethical in advertising because it is obnoxious and burdensome to other individuals. In the world of search engines, opt-out is the only sane and useful approach. Having an opt-in approach to indexing the internet would almost immediately render search engines useless and crush the democratic, grassroots nature and potential of the internet.
Google is not pushing anything at people. Neither are they competing with these sites, rather, they are serving them by sending traffic their way. It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone would be unappreciative of that. I suspect ulterior motives for these suits."
Fair point. Advertising, by it's nature, is a "push" business, and opt-in as you and many other people point are, is the ethical way to "push" something. The Internet, however, gives the option to "pull" consumers, which creates a different, compelling dynmaic. None-the-less Nathan, fair point. I think the concern regarding the newspapers is that people won't click through to read the rest of the article. They scan the headlines in Google News and move on, with no added benefit for the newspapers. From that perspective, Google is stealing traffic away from newspapers instead of giving it to them. Google is hindering rather than helping.
Seweso comments:
"The internet has alwasy been opt-out when it comes to indexing. There are just some webmaster who do not understand what a robots.txt file is.
The internet is all about sharing information and re-using it. Some people just don't get that, they are simply stuck in the old world.
By the way, in the Netherlands we have the exact same system as a robots.txt for our postal mail. We need to place a sticker on our mail-box to opt-out of unsolicited mail."
I will agree that there are plenty of webmasters, still, who have not heard of a robots.txt file let alone know how to use it. I didn't know before I started working here, but I looked it up and it is a rather fascinating file. I will also agree that the Internet is for sharing information. That was its purpose when first developed; to help share information. Re-using it, however, I can't say I agree or disagree. Granted information on the Internet is re-used in some fashion, but using protected information without permission is illegal. There are rules and regulations that govern content and ideas that aren't opinions. The issue of re-using information is a complicated one, but just because you can re-use something doesn't always mean you should. Other people are affected.
And this one just came in from Schultzter:
"It seems to me that not putting a robots.txt file on their sites the newspapers opted-in to be crawled and indexed. If the publishers did not want to appear on search engines they just had to tell their webmasters, so I would say the fault is theirs - I wonder if Google can counter-sue for being scapegoated?
On the other hand, I assume this was the first thing the Google lawyers pointed out at the trial so I would appreciated someone explaining what is the issue when there's such a simple solution already available."
Another fair point. So would say, then, that if there is no robots.txt file a search engine is not allowed to crawl the website? Yet search engines crawl them anyway, and websites with no robots.txt file get indexed. So how do you enforce that?
Clearly this is a complicated, yet fascinating issue, and Google is leading the charge in disrupting the establishment. But I'll bet that if the table's were turned, Google would fight tooth and nail to protect itself.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Copyright Infringement? What?
Surprise. Surprise. Google is in another copyright dispute, and it has decidedly lost, in a European Union court, no less. I find it interesting that it is written by a PR person and not someone from Google's legal team. Curious. Very curious.
The digital domain is a rather unique space, as we are all aware. Protecting one's copyrights is tricky business without the Internet. Copyright laws vary from country to country. Some are more strict regardless of country of origin, like the US, while others help their native businesses and pay little attention to cases brought by foreigh investors. Read "Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globaization" by Pat Choate for an excellent picture of copyright, patents and intellectual property. A really well written book on the beginning, middle and future of copyright, patent and intellectual property protection from a global perspective.
The issue with Google and its overseas news service is not that it supposedly drives traffic to other news websites but that it takes content from those websites without permission. Google is assuming that because there is a website with information people want, Google has a right to take it and display it for search results. Basically, the Google news services is an opt-out service, and Europe news outlets, Belgiums in particular, are not such fans of that.
If you think about it, opt-out is never the way to go with the Internet. It is considered unethical, actually. Most people apply it to advertising, whether email campaigns or mobile marketing. Opt-in advertising campaigns ensure you are reaching an audience that is interested to get an accurate gauge of the effectiveness of your campaign. That's why email service providers often discourage the use of a house list without first giving them the option to agree, or opt-in, to an email marketing campaign. The same is being seen in mobile marketing, where people sign-up or opt-in to recieve promotions or messages on their mobile devices.
Opt-in really encompasses the Internet itself. If people visit your website and buy your products, it is because they have chosen to do so, opted to do so, not because you assumed they would and then disregard them later when they don't. By having permission granted to show content, news services have opted-in to Google News. A robots.txt file does not count as opt-in. Especially since websites without a robots.txt file do get indexed by search engines. It just takes longer.
I find it very fascinating that a company that is so protective of its brand, technology and information is so freewheeling with everyone else's brand, technology and information. And it isn't clear who is responsible. Google will say it is not, it is merely a vessel and it is not its duty to police the content of the Internet. Google really ends up playing both sides. Some will say it is responsible, others way say it was helpful in finding infringers and bringing them to justice. Wow. Check that out. Another Google Contradiction!
Speaking of Google contradictions, there is a from Google's post on Banned Books that is more curious to me after reading "Hot Property." Just about every foreign company that does business with or in China must give up a good deal. Usually there is some agreement to share information that ends up completely one-sided. China gets the information while the foreign company gets nothing in return, except the theoretical access to the millions of people in China. Really, China has figured out how to "steal" information in order to develop it, improve it and re-package it for export. China ends up with a superior product while countries like the US wonder what happened.
So I'm curious as to what exactly Google had to give up to get into China. Not in terms of censorship or bowing to the laws of a foreign country when it won't even follow the rules of its own country, but what technology deals were cut. Will there be a far superior, independent China search engine?
I think that topic might warrant its own blog post...
The digital domain is a rather unique space, as we are all aware. Protecting one's copyrights is tricky business without the Internet. Copyright laws vary from country to country. Some are more strict regardless of country of origin, like the US, while others help their native businesses and pay little attention to cases brought by foreigh investors. Read "Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globaization" by Pat Choate for an excellent picture of copyright, patents and intellectual property. A really well written book on the beginning, middle and future of copyright, patent and intellectual property protection from a global perspective.
The issue with Google and its overseas news service is not that it supposedly drives traffic to other news websites but that it takes content from those websites without permission. Google is assuming that because there is a website with information people want, Google has a right to take it and display it for search results. Basically, the Google news services is an opt-out service, and Europe news outlets, Belgiums in particular, are not such fans of that.
If you think about it, opt-out is never the way to go with the Internet. It is considered unethical, actually. Most people apply it to advertising, whether email campaigns or mobile marketing. Opt-in advertising campaigns ensure you are reaching an audience that is interested to get an accurate gauge of the effectiveness of your campaign. That's why email service providers often discourage the use of a house list without first giving them the option to agree, or opt-in, to an email marketing campaign. The same is being seen in mobile marketing, where people sign-up or opt-in to recieve promotions or messages on their mobile devices.
Opt-in really encompasses the Internet itself. If people visit your website and buy your products, it is because they have chosen to do so, opted to do so, not because you assumed they would and then disregard them later when they don't. By having permission granted to show content, news services have opted-in to Google News. A robots.txt file does not count as opt-in. Especially since websites without a robots.txt file do get indexed by search engines. It just takes longer.
I find it very fascinating that a company that is so protective of its brand, technology and information is so freewheeling with everyone else's brand, technology and information. And it isn't clear who is responsible. Google will say it is not, it is merely a vessel and it is not its duty to police the content of the Internet. Google really ends up playing both sides. Some will say it is responsible, others way say it was helpful in finding infringers and bringing them to justice. Wow. Check that out. Another Google Contradiction!
Speaking of Google contradictions, there is a from Google's post on Banned Books that is more curious to me after reading "Hot Property." Just about every foreign company that does business with or in China must give up a good deal. Usually there is some agreement to share information that ends up completely one-sided. China gets the information while the foreign company gets nothing in return, except the theoretical access to the millions of people in China. Really, China has figured out how to "steal" information in order to develop it, improve it and re-package it for export. China ends up with a superior product while countries like the US wonder what happened.
So I'm curious as to what exactly Google had to give up to get into China. Not in terms of censorship or bowing to the laws of a foreign country when it won't even follow the rules of its own country, but what technology deals were cut. Will there be a far superior, independent China search engine?
I think that topic might warrant its own blog post...
Monday, September 18, 2006
Blogging and Other Stuff in the Wall Street Journal
There is an argument to be made that blogging is the more pervasive media these days. Millions of blogs are created every hour, so I'm told, and corporations are jumping on the band wagon.
I was a bit of a skeptic, especially considering the legal ramifications of corporate blogging if there are no rules or guidelines, plus the enforcement issue. Not to mention the possibility of trade secrets employees have and decide to post somewhere else in disguise. An "insider's view" perhaps to which people have wisened and stopped doing or just taken it underground with rather ingenious aliases.
There was also the argument that blogging was just a fad, further defended by the media and those niche markets, like fashion.
But an article from the Wall Street Journal last week points in the opposite direction. The fashion industry has recognized the importance of blogs and bloggers, and decided to invite bloggers to various fashion shows throughout the world. Course, that required first coming up with criteria on which to admit or deny. Style, voice and content were important criteria and ruled out quite a few from the start.
The Wall Street Journal taking interest in blogging is curious in itself, especially when you look at the page and the right-hand column talks about what research has shown for years: multitasking is bad. Examples of management typing an email to the HR group about dismissing an employee is sent to the employee as well. An instance of trying to book airline tickets for a vacation and dealing with a client leads to a disgruntled client and airline tickets to a vacation destination you have never heard of nor want to visit. Research has shown that the people who succeed focus on one thing and do that one thing well.
Simple thinking right? Amazing though how so few people follow it. That was made more apparent when Fortune published its richest people in the world. What a shock that if you made less than $1 Billion, you were excluded. And what do they all have in common? They focused on one thing, did that one thing well and built an empire around it. They hire the best and brightest people to make up for what they lack. Just look at Google for a recent success story, though there is an argument to be made that Google is floundering and losing focus. A better example might be YouTube.
So the fashion industry has decided to hire, for the time being, the best and the brightest people who do what they can't always do: speak to the masses using words. Fashion is more about image than description, but with a wired world, description becomes more important.
It should be very very interesting to see what happens....
I was a bit of a skeptic, especially considering the legal ramifications of corporate blogging if there are no rules or guidelines, plus the enforcement issue. Not to mention the possibility of trade secrets employees have and decide to post somewhere else in disguise. An "insider's view" perhaps to which people have wisened and stopped doing or just taken it underground with rather ingenious aliases.
There was also the argument that blogging was just a fad, further defended by the media and those niche markets, like fashion.
But an article from the Wall Street Journal last week points in the opposite direction. The fashion industry has recognized the importance of blogs and bloggers, and decided to invite bloggers to various fashion shows throughout the world. Course, that required first coming up with criteria on which to admit or deny. Style, voice and content were important criteria and ruled out quite a few from the start.
The Wall Street Journal taking interest in blogging is curious in itself, especially when you look at the page and the right-hand column talks about what research has shown for years: multitasking is bad. Examples of management typing an email to the HR group about dismissing an employee is sent to the employee as well. An instance of trying to book airline tickets for a vacation and dealing with a client leads to a disgruntled client and airline tickets to a vacation destination you have never heard of nor want to visit. Research has shown that the people who succeed focus on one thing and do that one thing well.
Simple thinking right? Amazing though how so few people follow it. That was made more apparent when Fortune published its richest people in the world. What a shock that if you made less than $1 Billion, you were excluded. And what do they all have in common? They focused on one thing, did that one thing well and built an empire around it. They hire the best and brightest people to make up for what they lack. Just look at Google for a recent success story, though there is an argument to be made that Google is floundering and losing focus. A better example might be YouTube.
So the fashion industry has decided to hire, for the time being, the best and the brightest people who do what they can't always do: speak to the masses using words. Fashion is more about image than description, but with a wired world, description becomes more important.
It should be very very interesting to see what happens....
Sunday, September 10, 2006
5 Years....Taking a Moment to Reflect
On this eve of the 5th anniversary of September 11th, I sit on my couch, unable to fight back tears as I watch a show on CBS that was meant to be a documentary about a rookie firefighter but turned into an account of September 11th. Two brothers were following a rookie firefighter at Ladder 7 at Station 1, which served the World Trade Center.
All weekend there have been shows about Sept. 11, the 3 attacks and the one averted, the 9/11 Commission, the tapes of those trapped and the final phone calls of those aboard flight United 93, the stories of people of all walks of life touched by that day, the days leading up to it, the War on Terrorism, and where we are now, 5 years later.
5 years later. I remember walking through the World Trade Center the first and only time on Memorial Day weekend of 2001. I had gone for the weekend to visit my brothers, both of whom live and work in New York. One brother lived down on Wall Street, and the World Trade Center was a short cut to his apartment. I had walked the Brooklyn Bridge with my other brother, pausing to stare back at those magnificent feats of engineering. They were such a sight to see flying in and out of La Guardia, and even more impressive walking through them and looking back from ground level.
I remember waking up that September morning, getting ready for an early econ lab. My room mate turned on the TV and the second plane hit. My eldest brother was supposed to be at a meeting that morning, and I didn't find out until much later that day that he and my other brother were okay, but many if his good friends and colleagues were not. I learned later from my mother who is a teacher that she something horrible had happened when mothers and fathers came to pick up their children before being deployed. The day itself was odd. Large screens had been set up in Brady Commons, and students were packed in there, watching. The econ TA and those in lab seemed oblivious to what had happened. Supply and demand were two words that took on a different meaning that day. Even all the way in Missouri, the day had a profound effect on that town. You knew someone who dropped out to enlist. There was a vigial, and even the Muslim community came out to show their respect, and started an education on the Muslim religion and how not all Muslims are extremist. I knew that. One of my best friends in high school was Muslim, and had pointed out difference. To hear it again though, on that day, was a little hard to comprehend but then a history major pointed out the extremists in any religion. They don't represent a majority.
Memorial Day weekend of 2002, I flew to NY again to visit my brothers, and as the plane banked for the landing pattern at La Guardia, it passed the skyline that was now void of the two towers some part of brain still expected to see, and didn't know how to react when the visual was empty. There is still no description I can give after seeing Ground Zero in person that will do it justice. Memorials were everywhere, pictures that had been put up of those missing were still there. I still marvel at the thousands of people who walk by that scene every day to go to the office.
5 years later. I look at the books I have accumulated in my apartment and notice a shift in the genre. Seems Sept. 11th has had an effect on me I didn't realize, and sparked a fascination and unquenchable curiosity about how the rich history of the US has created such hatred for it.
5 years later. I talk to my brothers more often, even if it's just for five minutes. I talk to cousins more often, connect with people from high school and college that I haven't spoken to in a few years. I talk to my parents almost every day. Take time out to remember and enjoy the simpile pleasures, the things we take for granted that can be rippped away in just a couple of hours. I say a silent prayer for the men and women who have given their lives, and for those who continue to sacrifice.
5 years later. I wonder what the next 5 years will bring.
All weekend there have been shows about Sept. 11, the 3 attacks and the one averted, the 9/11 Commission, the tapes of those trapped and the final phone calls of those aboard flight United 93, the stories of people of all walks of life touched by that day, the days leading up to it, the War on Terrorism, and where we are now, 5 years later.
5 years later. I remember walking through the World Trade Center the first and only time on Memorial Day weekend of 2001. I had gone for the weekend to visit my brothers, both of whom live and work in New York. One brother lived down on Wall Street, and the World Trade Center was a short cut to his apartment. I had walked the Brooklyn Bridge with my other brother, pausing to stare back at those magnificent feats of engineering. They were such a sight to see flying in and out of La Guardia, and even more impressive walking through them and looking back from ground level.
I remember waking up that September morning, getting ready for an early econ lab. My room mate turned on the TV and the second plane hit. My eldest brother was supposed to be at a meeting that morning, and I didn't find out until much later that day that he and my other brother were okay, but many if his good friends and colleagues were not. I learned later from my mother who is a teacher that she something horrible had happened when mothers and fathers came to pick up their children before being deployed. The day itself was odd. Large screens had been set up in Brady Commons, and students were packed in there, watching. The econ TA and those in lab seemed oblivious to what had happened. Supply and demand were two words that took on a different meaning that day. Even all the way in Missouri, the day had a profound effect on that town. You knew someone who dropped out to enlist. There was a vigial, and even the Muslim community came out to show their respect, and started an education on the Muslim religion and how not all Muslims are extremist. I knew that. One of my best friends in high school was Muslim, and had pointed out difference. To hear it again though, on that day, was a little hard to comprehend but then a history major pointed out the extremists in any religion. They don't represent a majority.
Memorial Day weekend of 2002, I flew to NY again to visit my brothers, and as the plane banked for the landing pattern at La Guardia, it passed the skyline that was now void of the two towers some part of brain still expected to see, and didn't know how to react when the visual was empty. There is still no description I can give after seeing Ground Zero in person that will do it justice. Memorials were everywhere, pictures that had been put up of those missing were still there. I still marvel at the thousands of people who walk by that scene every day to go to the office.
5 years later. I look at the books I have accumulated in my apartment and notice a shift in the genre. Seems Sept. 11th has had an effect on me I didn't realize, and sparked a fascination and unquenchable curiosity about how the rich history of the US has created such hatred for it.
5 years later. I talk to my brothers more often, even if it's just for five minutes. I talk to cousins more often, connect with people from high school and college that I haven't spoken to in a few years. I talk to my parents almost every day. Take time out to remember and enjoy the simpile pleasures, the things we take for granted that can be rippped away in just a couple of hours. I say a silent prayer for the men and women who have given their lives, and for those who continue to sacrifice.
5 years later. I wonder what the next 5 years will bring.
Friday, September 8, 2006
We Will Miss You, Marshall Field's
I just wanted to take a minute and wish a fond farewell and happy retirements to a Chicago icon: Marshall Field's.
If anyone has been paying attention the news, especially in the last few weeks, you'll know that Macy's, that omnipresent store on the East and West Coasts, has extended its tentacles into the MidWest by purchasing and killing Marshall Field's.
We should count our blessings it isn't Target or Wal-Mart (imagine Wal-Mart on State Street!), and thank the Big-Box-Store law, but at least Target and Wal-Mart understand the importance of reputation and winning the loyalty of the people. Macy's may be a big brand on either coast, but it is nothing in the MidWest. And so far, Macy's has proven itself cold and uninviting. As if changing the name of a beloved franchise wasn't bad enough, Macy's had to illustrate its incompetence by labeling the street exits incorrectly even the STREET NAMES ARE ENGRAVED ABOVE THE DOORS.
That to me is not a sign of an intelligent retailer who wants to win the loyalty of a city that does not give it easily. We won't mention the cease and disist order it sent to local deli who fondly named its most popular sandwich "Marshall's." Such incidents have made Chicagoans even more angry, and quite a few have gathered on a website called FieldsFansChicago to voice theit outrage and protest the impending demise of our Chicago icon. I had hoped that all the publicity of Macy's and its debacles as it tries to fill big shoes would have some effect, and even more hopeful that the Field's devotees teeming on the Web would be able to cause another national shift. Alas, that does not seem to be the case.
And it was really depressing to type in fields.com and be greated by a Macy's banner, and watch the title tag change from "Marshall Field's" to "Marshall Field's is now Macy's" to just "Macy's" as the redirect finished its long, slow journey to macys.com and its obnoxious, migraine-inducing red image before the Flash video of people dressed in red and black. Do they really sell dogs at Macy's? And what a hidesously slow website. I can read 3 articles from the Trib by the time a page loads. All that will be left of Field's online will be in the WayBack machine. I hope.
We will miss you Marshall Field's. Your deep green, your welcoming personalities in every department and the style and grace with which you served Chicago.
If anyone has been paying attention the news, especially in the last few weeks, you'll know that Macy's, that omnipresent store on the East and West Coasts, has extended its tentacles into the MidWest by purchasing and killing Marshall Field's.
We should count our blessings it isn't Target or Wal-Mart (imagine Wal-Mart on State Street!), and thank the Big-Box-Store law, but at least Target and Wal-Mart understand the importance of reputation and winning the loyalty of the people. Macy's may be a big brand on either coast, but it is nothing in the MidWest. And so far, Macy's has proven itself cold and uninviting. As if changing the name of a beloved franchise wasn't bad enough, Macy's had to illustrate its incompetence by labeling the street exits incorrectly even the STREET NAMES ARE ENGRAVED ABOVE THE DOORS.
That to me is not a sign of an intelligent retailer who wants to win the loyalty of a city that does not give it easily. We won't mention the cease and disist order it sent to local deli who fondly named its most popular sandwich "Marshall's." Such incidents have made Chicagoans even more angry, and quite a few have gathered on a website called FieldsFansChicago to voice theit outrage and protest the impending demise of our Chicago icon. I had hoped that all the publicity of Macy's and its debacles as it tries to fill big shoes would have some effect, and even more hopeful that the Field's devotees teeming on the Web would be able to cause another national shift. Alas, that does not seem to be the case.
And it was really depressing to type in fields.com and be greated by a Macy's banner, and watch the title tag change from "Marshall Field's" to "Marshall Field's is now Macy's" to just "Macy's" as the redirect finished its long, slow journey to macys.com and its obnoxious, migraine-inducing red image before the Flash video of people dressed in red and black. Do they really sell dogs at Macy's? And what a hidesously slow website. I can read 3 articles from the Trib by the time a page loads. All that will be left of Field's online will be in the WayBack machine. I hope.
We will miss you Marshall Field's. Your deep green, your welcoming personalities in every department and the style and grace with which you served Chicago.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Ego Trippin' Through Search Engines Reveals a Big Difference in Results
The other day I was looking for an article I wrote in college about beocming a DJ, and found to my amazement that I did not possess a copy. I had the many pages I designed in college, but not the one article I was assigned to write.
So I did the first logical thing since it had worked before: I "googled" myself. In the past, many results have appeared but only 2 actually pertained to me. The first used to be a "Special Thanks" for editing a journal in college for my good friend and room mate. The university has since removed it. The second results that applied to me was my writing portfolio on Writing.com. You could say that it was impossible to find any relevent, useful information about me on the Internet and I enjoyed being annoynmous. And, even though I work for an Internet company, I'm a ghostwriter for it, meaning I get zero credit for the writing that I do for websites, email campaigns, newsletters, etc.
Imagine my shock when I "googled" myself the other night and stared at the first listing: Small Chicago Agency Honored for Web Creativity. The first 4 results have to do with Azavar press releases I have written. Results 5 and 6 relate to articles I have posted as a content producer for Associated Content. Results 9 and 10, again, Azavar press releases.
That got me thinking. What would happen if I put quotations around my name and "googled" myself again? That returned very different results. My Content Producer page for Associated Content is the first listing, a preview of the Portugal World Cup team I wrote for American Sports Digest is 7th and the 16th result is a quote I'm sure will come back to haunt me if any guys I date "google" me beforehand.
You'll notice that the DJ article for which I was searching has not appeared as a result at all.
Very curious now about how much of me has appeared on the Internet in the past four months, I clicked the "repeat the search with omitted results" link and suddenly there were 81 results. 81! Course, many of those are the same article or short story repeated numerous times, but buried in there too are compliments from other AC content producers on my Fielding and Disney essay and my film noir and bop essay.
Still no DJ article and no writing portfolio. The writing portfolio I can understand. It hasn't been updated in months so the content is stale and not something to which search engines will pay much attention. The same could be said for the DJ article as it has been archived by the Maneater but still, it has my frickin' name on it.
My curiosity got the better of me, especially since I spend a fair amount of my time hopping from search engine to search engine, testing keywords and their results. I went to MSN and Yahoo and did a search on myself.
The normal way in Yahoo turned up my AC content producer page as the first result and a short story as a second. Seven of the top 11 results were Azavar press releases. Quotations and omitted results included for Yahoo yieled 38 results, and it was rather impressive to see the spread of press releases. They are inadvertently spreading my name all over the Internet.
Yahoo however, did not return my ASD article on Portugal nor did it return the feedback from other content producers on AC. Interesting. Very interesting.
Naturally, I had to check MSN. Only the first 5 results, well, 4 as one is for PRWeb itself, relate to me. The quotation deal yields just 12 results, include the ASD article on Portugal. But nothing from AC other than the articles and short stories I have submitted.
This ego-trip through search engines, and not on purpose mind you as I was just trying to find an article and not how many times I show up in search engine results. I rather enjoyed being annoynmous.
At any rate, there is clearly a big difference in how search engines crawl the Web and return query information. Certainly this is nothing new, especially for a person like me who monitors these shifts on a regular basis. What is interesting, however, are the top 5 results and how they vary from search engine to search engine. For instance, both Google and Yahoo return my AC content producer pages as a first result with quotations, whereas MSN returns the Adobe Education Reseller press release I wrote.
If I take out the quotations, the top results stay the same for MSN and Yahoo, but Google returns the "Small Agency Honored for Web Creativity" press release as the first result.
Certainly puts a damper on the argument that Google isn't the best search engine now doesn't it?
So I did the first logical thing since it had worked before: I "googled" myself. In the past, many results have appeared but only 2 actually pertained to me. The first used to be a "Special Thanks" for editing a journal in college for my good friend and room mate. The university has since removed it. The second results that applied to me was my writing portfolio on Writing.com. You could say that it was impossible to find any relevent, useful information about me on the Internet and I enjoyed being annoynmous. And, even though I work for an Internet company, I'm a ghostwriter for it, meaning I get zero credit for the writing that I do for websites, email campaigns, newsletters, etc.
Imagine my shock when I "googled" myself the other night and stared at the first listing: Small Chicago Agency Honored for Web Creativity. The first 4 results have to do with Azavar press releases I have written. Results 5 and 6 relate to articles I have posted as a content producer for Associated Content. Results 9 and 10, again, Azavar press releases.
That got me thinking. What would happen if I put quotations around my name and "googled" myself again? That returned very different results. My Content Producer page for Associated Content is the first listing, a preview of the Portugal World Cup team I wrote for American Sports Digest is 7th and the 16th result is a quote I'm sure will come back to haunt me if any guys I date "google" me beforehand.
You'll notice that the DJ article for which I was searching has not appeared as a result at all.
Very curious now about how much of me has appeared on the Internet in the past four months, I clicked the "repeat the search with omitted results" link and suddenly there were 81 results. 81! Course, many of those are the same article or short story repeated numerous times, but buried in there too are compliments from other AC content producers on my Fielding and Disney essay and my film noir and bop essay.
Still no DJ article and no writing portfolio. The writing portfolio I can understand. It hasn't been updated in months so the content is stale and not something to which search engines will pay much attention. The same could be said for the DJ article as it has been archived by the Maneater but still, it has my frickin' name on it.
My curiosity got the better of me, especially since I spend a fair amount of my time hopping from search engine to search engine, testing keywords and their results. I went to MSN and Yahoo and did a search on myself.
The normal way in Yahoo turned up my AC content producer page as the first result and a short story as a second. Seven of the top 11 results were Azavar press releases. Quotations and omitted results included for Yahoo yieled 38 results, and it was rather impressive to see the spread of press releases. They are inadvertently spreading my name all over the Internet.
Yahoo however, did not return my ASD article on Portugal nor did it return the feedback from other content producers on AC. Interesting. Very interesting.
Naturally, I had to check MSN. Only the first 5 results, well, 4 as one is for PRWeb itself, relate to me. The quotation deal yields just 12 results, include the ASD article on Portugal. But nothing from AC other than the articles and short stories I have submitted.
This ego-trip through search engines, and not on purpose mind you as I was just trying to find an article and not how many times I show up in search engine results. I rather enjoyed being annoynmous.
At any rate, there is clearly a big difference in how search engines crawl the Web and return query information. Certainly this is nothing new, especially for a person like me who monitors these shifts on a regular basis. What is interesting, however, are the top 5 results and how they vary from search engine to search engine. For instance, both Google and Yahoo return my AC content producer pages as a first result with quotations, whereas MSN returns the Adobe Education Reseller press release I wrote.
If I take out the quotations, the top results stay the same for MSN and Yahoo, but Google returns the "Small Agency Honored for Web Creativity" press release as the first result.
Certainly puts a damper on the argument that Google isn't the best search engine now doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)